Messages - FalconJimmy

I wish more folks would post like the two of you. I agree, a law degree is a long term investment and it may pay off in ways that you never imagined as a 1L. The economy is crap right now, but in 15 years, it won't be like this. If you plan on being alive then, you might want to set yourself up.

Also, the boomers will start retiring soon. Granted, they're not retiring in the numbers they should. They're a generation that will probably die at their desks. Once they're gone, though, there should be a lot of job openings.

Jennings, "bottom feeder" may have been harsh, but you are right to realize that there is a very distinct pecking order in law schools.

The better the law school, the better your chances of success. The worse the law school, the worse your chances. Simple as that.

So, no need to be apologetic. This sort of debate happens here all the time. There are folks who think that some 0Ls are a little too "brand conscious" when they pick a school. So, they draw out anectdotes. X judge went to crappola law school. Y senior partner went to Clown Law College.

Yeah, it happens, but you don't want to make a career in the law any harder than it already is.

Oh, as for the LSAT, I'd say if you can't do a prep-course, get the powerscore books. Take lots and lots of practice exams. More than any other factor, this is the most important thing you can do right now.

The amount of scholarship $$$ out there for people with a high LSAT is insane. Really, I was stunned to see how much $$$ is out there. If I had known, I'd have prepared for the LSAT a lot more than just taking 3 practice exams.

First and foremost, thank you very much for your service to our country. I can not imagine the set of big brassy ones it takes to volunteer to be an infantryman at a time when our nation is fighting two wars at once. So, thank you.

Second, I really can't address the meat of your question, but just wanted to point out that you may wish to look at University of Toledo. I think, in the scheme of things, it is considered a half-tick below Wayne, but pretty darned close.

The reason I say this is that we have internships with the University's sports department. One recent grad went straight from law school to work for Ohio State's NCAA compliance department.

Just a thought. Best of luck to you. I think if you can get in to Marquette, that's worth it. All things being equal, I'd probably pick Wayne over Toledo, but you may be able to get some big scholarship $$$ that would make Toledo more attractive. If you come here, I'll be the first to buy a veteran a drink.

I am interested in attending Concord for several reasons to include time and money. My ultimate goal is to teach college courses and I see that Concord has an EJD as well. Are either the JD or EJD acceptable? Concord is DETC and since it's part of Kaplan, I understand it is regionally accredited as well from what I understand. Most schools require a regionally accreditied terminal degree such as a Phd or Doctorate. Any information is appreciated.

Keep in mind that academics is its own little world and you have to know how it works.

You can teach at a junior college with a master's degree, but those jobs are rare. I have heard from a juco president that if you get a masters in math or english, you can get a job easily. Other subjects? You sorta have to be lucky enough to be there when the guy who has the job now dies.

The terminal degree for a teaching credential is a Ph.D. or an Ed.D, or some variant thereof. A JD is not really considered on-par with those degrees. People make a grave error when they think that a JD is considered the academic equivalent of a Ph.D. Yes, you can teach in a college of law... provided you went to a top 14, and preferably to 3 school and made law review.

The best degree you could get would be a Ph.D. in criminology or something related to the field you want to teach. A J.D. can teach law. that's pretty much it. Every once in a while, a college hires a JD to teach business law, but at most schools, you'd be lucky to see ONE JD in the school of business. Maybe in the Crim Justice classes, you see a JD here or there, but that brings up the next problem or set of problems.

People who put in the work to do something the right way are generally not receptive to people who take shortcuts and try to get the same benefits. An online EJD? Okay, that's a problem. Put yourself in the shoes of somebody with a JD who makes this hiring decision. Yes, he might hire somebody with an EJD, but only after those who got real JDs were not available. As you may have gathered, there is no shortage of JDs in the country. Plus, a lot of them aren't suited to a career in the law and would love nothing more than a 9 month job with full-time pay and benefits where they teach 4 classes a semester.

You're trying to work a shortcut and it will be seen as such. Perhaps your other credentials are so impressive they'll overcome a degree that simply screams "lazy and not particularly intelligent", but if that is the case, why get the EJD.

If you want to teach, get a real master's. An EJD? I'd think somebody with an online EJD was mentally ill. why the hell would any sane person get that degree?

I need help fast! I'm looking for a transcript of an oral argument. The case is "American Civil Liberties Union v. Anita Alvarez." Oral Agrument was held on 09/13/11 in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (federal). Docket # 11-1286. Does anyone have access to Westlaw to get it for me? Again, I just need the transcript to the oral agrument, nothing else. Here a link to the audio download on the Court website. I need a transcript of this. I don't have time to order it from the court (takes 30 days). http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=11-1286&amp;submit=showdkt&amp;yr=11&amp;num=1286

Please reply if you can find it. I've looked all over the internet and can't. Was told Westlaw most likely had it. Thanks!

but incentive buy insuance clearly there. why pay $2k for nothing rather than buy insurance? even after $2k, there going be medical bills, especially if children.

some not buy insurance, to be sure. but many will, and that whole idea.

Perhaps. We'll have to see how this goes. A lot of folks who won't buy insurance were getting pretty big checks for refundable tax credits, anyway. The two will probably offset.

The main problem I have is that for most people, they COULD buy insurance today, but don't because it's too expensive. Yes, this will make things much less expensive for high-risk folks, but will make things much more expensive for healthy folks. I was without insurance for a few years in my 20s. The cost of it far outweighed the potential downside. Lots of people make that calculation. Some percent of them gamble and lose.

Trouble is, now, everybody is compelled to buy the insurance or pay the fine. If we couldn't afford it before, and it'll actually get MORE expensive if you're healthy, this is a huge step backwards for a lot of folks.

It's not that I don't support health reform. I think it's one of the most important things in the country right now. However, we have to address cost and Obamacare really doesn't do that in any meaningful way. It just tries to share the costs across a broader pool. But let's face it, the folks with money pretty much already had health insurance. The uninsured either won't have to pay for their insurance, or can't afford it.

Until we have single payer and are not paying 100% more for the same drugs that England buys, we won't have a solution to this problem. I think everybody realizes that. Where I differ is that I am not entirely sure this is a meaningful first step.